Allowed

Sanjay Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019BAIL/10219/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge granted bail to an applicant accused of dowry death and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court accepted the applicant's submissions regarding false implication without commenting on merits and imposed standard bail conditions including attendance and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearance and conduct.

Sanjay Patel Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10219 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for causing dowry death of his wife; that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant regarding demand of dowry or treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that applicant neither made any demand of dowry nor treated deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry; that as per averments made in FIR lodged by Kanhaiya Lal on 4.8.2018, his daughter Luxmina was married to applicant in the year 2012 and since thereafter she was being treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-; that postmortem report of deceased states cause of death due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging; that there is no other ante mortem injury on her person except ligature mark; that real fact is that marriage between applicant and deceased did take place on 15.5.2011, more than seven years before the alleged incident and deceased was blessed with two sons; that first informant has been examined as PW-1 before trial court and in his cross examination has admitted marriage between deceased and applicant in the year 2011 as against 2012 mentioned in FIR and has also admitted that there was no demand of dowry; that deceased was insisting to go to her Mayka and since the applicant and her in-laws did not permit her, short tempered deceased committed suicide by hanging herself; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 30.8.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and

¶9

considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Sanjay Patel be released on bail in S.T. No.178 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 320 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.3.2019 T. Sinha

Sanjay Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Haseena Vs State of U.P.

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Deepu @ Prabhat Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Babita Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P.

Mangeram Vs State of U.P.